








1? *\3 






























♦ aV v. 













T* % .&*" 



• a v -^ 




<fs£»l.*°« 




9 <£*V ''Ti 

* 4? «J>-, «^ 








* V *S °^ 










5' % 



F * «J>^* 




4* 



°o 








^oV* 



% 














* _/V»-2_ » O. 






w 



IP* 
































"%-^ 




^„^' 




THE 



PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY, 



AN ADDRESS, 



DELIVERED IN REHOBOTH CHURCH, IOWA, 



JULY 4TH, 1860. 



BY 



J. M. M'DONALD. 



PUBLISHED BY REQUEST OF THE AUDIENCE. 



PHILADELPHIA: 
WM. S. YOUNG, BOOK AND JOB PRINTER^ 52 NORTH SIXTH STREET. 

1861. 



£"- 



In BxohanM 
CtoratU Unlr, 

ft F»b 06 










THE PERFECT LAW OF LIBERTY. 

AN ADDRESS 

DELIVERED IN REHOBOTH CHURCH, IOWA, JULY 4TH, I860. 

BY J. M. M'DOXALD. 



The subject on which you have invited me to speak, is one of no 
ordinary magnitude and importance. The interest which it is awaken- 
ing, the agitation which it is producing, and the " irrepressible con- 
flict" which it has created between hostile parties, invest it with an 
importance possessed by few, if any other questions, in morals or po- 
litics. In the consideration of this subject the strongest emotions, 
and the tenderest sympathies of our nature are excited. The Creator 
" has made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of 
the earth." The human race, therefore, possesses a common nature, 
and forms one universal brotherhood, so that members of the human 
family ought to be able to say in the language of Juvenal, a native of 
Africa, and once a Roman slave — "I am a man, and I FEEL AN inte- 
rest IN EVERY thing that concerns humanity." 

If it be so that men form one common brotherhood, and have a 
common nature, then the wrong done to one is wrong done to all. 
For the principle which justifies the enslaving of an African, will 
equally justify the enslaving of the European or American. The mo- 
rality or religion which teaches that it is right to enslave the black 
man, also teaches the justice of enslaving the white man, for morality 
and religion know nothing of distinctions founded on the colour of the 
skin. Let it be proved that it is right to enslave the dark-skinned 
man and woman, and it is proved that we may take the proudest son 
of nobility, and the fairest daughter of luxury and refinement, and 
sell them like beasts in the market. Strange, then, it is indeed, that 
every one who cherishes a sacred regard for the invaluable right of 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, does not cry out against 
slavery as an intolerable wrong to humanity. 

Additional importance is given to this question by the fact that the 
slaveholder and his abettors attempt to take shelter under the shield 
of the holy religion of Christ. The apologist for slavery turns with 
sanctimonious mien to the sacred Oracles, and triumphantly exclaims, 
"Here is my warrant for enslaving my fellow-men." Who, then, that 
regards the Bible as the great charter of human liberty, and the gospel 
as breathing the spirit of Him who was anointed to preach the gospel 

* Published by request of the Audience. 



[ 4 ] 

to the poor, was sent to heal the broken-hearted, to preach delive- 
rance to the captives, and to set at liberty them that are bruised, does 
not feel his soul kindling with indignation at the profanity of the man 
who thrusts his hands into that sacred ark, to bring forth chains and 
manacles for human limbs? Grant that the Bible sanctions slavery, 
and the star of human hope sets for ever, and the darkness of despair 
settles down on the oppressed and struggling races of men. But, 
blessed be its eternal Author, every page is full of encouragement. 
Its statutes secure to man his right to liberty, its divine songs breathe 
consolation for the oppressed, and teach him to sing of the vengeance 
treasured up for the oppressor. 

The question is, then, very naturally suggested, Why is it that there 
are on the earth so many millions of oppressed, notwithstanding more 
than eighteen centuries have elapsed since heavenly messengers pro- 
claimed at the advent of the Saviour, "On earth peace, and good- will 
to men?" Is it the practical application of that religion which he 
taught? Nay, it is the violation of its principles, the transgression 
of its precepts, the utter disregard and trampling under foot its laws, 
that has made one part of our race abject slaves, and the other tyrants 
and despots to harass and spoil them. 

I shall, therefore, devote the time allowed me on this occasion to 
an examination of the laws and principles of the Old and New Testa- 
ment, so far as they relate to this subject. The propriety and the 
necessity of such an examination, is obvious. 1. The Bible is the 
source to which the ablest advocates of slavery always appeal. Mi- 
nisters of the gospel, with shame the confession is made, are the most 
unblushing defenders of the system, and their appeal is always to the 
Scriptures. It is proper, then, to meet them, and vanquish them, 
if possible, on their own chosen ground. 2. There are no doubt many 
persons deluded into the belief that slavery is sanctioned by the Scrip- 
tures of truth. 3. The teaching of pro-slavery ministers and churches 
has made, and is still making scores, yea hundreds and thousands of 
infidels. The very light of nature shows that the dogma, which asserts 
that one man may hold property in another, is the proton-pseudos, 
or first lie of the age. And hence men very naturally conclude that 
if the Bible contains that doctrine, it cannot have proceeded from the 
same just and holy. God who created them, and laid deep in their moral 
constitution " the self-evident truth that all men are created free and 
equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 
rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." 
4. Political action alone is not sufficient to settle this great question. 
It may contribute to this end, but it may be safely said that history 
affords no instance of any great moral question being settled by mere 
political action. The ground on which, as a question of morals, it 
must be settled, is this — the law of God is the supreme rule govern- 
ing men in every relation of life, and that law contains no warrant 
for slaveholding; but, on the contrary, expressly condemns it. 

It is necessary to the successful examination of this subject, that 
we understand clearly and definitely what slavery is. It is impossi- 
ble to speak intelligently on any subject, unless we understand it. 
And in defining slavery, the properties of a true definition must not 
be forgotten. A definition, to be complete, should "unfold the whole 



[ 5 ] 

of what is involved in the meaning of the word defined; that is, (when 
it is a connotative word,) the whole of what it connotes. In defining 
a name, however, it is not usual to specify its entire connotation, but 
so much only as is sufficient to mark out the objects usually denoted 
by it from all other known objects." * Webster thus explains : — " De- 
finition. In logic, the explication of the essence of a thing by its 
kind and difference." No definition of slavery, then, can be regarded 
as adequate which does not give its distinctive attribute. 

Guided by these rules, we readily perceive the imperfection of 
many of the definitions given by writers and speakers on this sub- 
ject. Dr. Paley defines it to be involuntary servitude. He says: — 
" Servitude differs from slavery in this, that the servant contracts to 
work for his master; while the slave, without such contract, is com- 
pelled to labour." f This is incomplete, because it does not distin- 
guish it from other kinds of service. A child is required to labour 
for its parents, without its consent; and if a parent or guardian binds 
a child or ward as an apprentice, it is required to labour without its 
consent, but who regards it as a slave? Dr. Rice's definition is still 
more defective. He defines it to be simply the claim of one man to 
the services of another. " If there is any thing necessarily included 
in slaveholding, except the claim of one man to the services of another, 
will Mr. B. please inform us what it is?"! But does this give us a 
single distinctive feature of slavery? If one man hires another, and 
pays him for his labour, he has a claim on his services, but is he his 
slave? The master has a claim on the service of an apprentice for 
the consideration of teaching him a valuable trade, is he therefore a 
slave? If we employ an attorney, and pay him his fees, we have a 
claim on his services. If a congregation calls a minister, and pays 
him a salary, there is a claim established to his services. If we em- 
ploy a physician by the year, and pay him, we have a claim on his 
services. Are all these, therefore, slaves? They are, according to 
Dr. R's. definition. Is it not, however, a little remarkable, that it 
should be thought necessary to spend four days in an effort to prove 
that it is not in itself sinful for one man to have a claim on the ser- 
vices of another? Inasmuch as this has never been denied, his la- 
bour is briefly described in the following words — " carrying coals to 
Newcastle." 

What, then, constitutes slavery ? It is the holding of property in 
man. The master claims that the slave is his property, subject to 
bargain and sale, just as is his horse. Slavery not being a natural 
relation, is just whatever the laws regulating the system make it: and 
history shows that these laws have been much the same in every age 
and nation in which slavery has ever existed. According to t^e 
Roman law, the slave was the property of his master. Adams says: — 
" Slaves were not esteemed as persons, but as things, and might be 
transferred from one owner to another, like any other effects. They 
could not make a will, nor inherit any thing?" § Another writer says 
that they were held, "pro nullis, pro mortu/'s, pro quadruped ibus:" 
that is, for nothing, for dead, for beast3. The same principle per- 

* Mills' Logic, p. 77. f Moral Philosophy, p. SO. 

% Debates with Blanckard, p. 32. $ Roman Antiquities, p. 43. 



[ 6 ] 

vades the slave laws of this country. The Civil Code of South Caro- 
lina contains the following statute: — "Slaves shall be deemed sold, 
taken, reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels personal in the 
hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, adminis- 
trators, and assigns, to all intents, constructions, and purposes what- 
soever." * This principle is found in all the laws of the slave states, 
and in all the decisions of the courts in relation to slavery. In a suit 
brought for the recovery of the children of a slave mother, the children 
having been bequeathed by the will of the master before they were 
born, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained by the higher courts on 
the following ground: — "He who is the absolute owner of a tiling, 
owns all its faculties for profit or increase, and he may, no doubt, 
grant the profits or increase, as well as the thing itself." f But there 
is no necessity to multiply proof. Take away this element from the 
laws, strip the master of the right to call his slave his property, and 
slavery is effectually and for ever abolished. 

The question then is, Do the laws of the Old and New Testament 
sanction slavery; that is, the holding of property in man? This ques- 
tion must be answered in the negative. It is not sanctioned — 

I. In the patriarchal servitude. To this the advocate of slavery 
refers, as affording very plain evidence that slavery is a Bible institu- 
tion. He appeals to the fact that "Abraham had servants born in 
his house, and bought with money." But it is not easy to see where 
the force of this allegation lies. In order to establish the position 
which it is brought to prove, it must be shown that these servants 
were slaves; or, in other words, were goods and chattels personal to 
all intents and purposes whatsoever; for' if they were not, it will 
never prove slavery to be right. That they were not slaves, appears 
from the following considerations: 

1. They do not seem to have been regarded as constituting the 
wealth of the patriarchs. When their wealth alone is spoken of, lan- 
guage such as the following is used: — "And Abram was very rich in 
cattle, and in silver and in gold." (Gen. xiii. 2.) When his great- 
ness is spoken of in connexion with his wealth, then his servants are 
mentioned. "And he said, I am Abraham's servant, and the Lord 
hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great: and he hath 
given him flocks, and herds, and silver and gold, and men-servants 
and maid-servants, and camels and asses." (Gen. xxiv. 34, 35.) Of 
Isaac it is said: — "And the man waxed great, and went forward, and 
grew, until he became great; for he had possessions of flocks, and 
possessions of herds, and great store of servants." (Gen. xxvi. 13, 14.) 
So, when Rachel and Leah speak of the great riches which God had 
taken from their father, and given to Jacob, there is mention made of 
his cattle and his goods, but not of his servants. (Gen. xxxi. 16 — 18.) 
And when Hamor and Shechem were endeavouring to persuade the 
Shechemites to form an alliance with Jacob, they held out as an in- 
ducement that all Jacob's substance would be theirs, but they do not 
mention his servants as constituting any part of this wealth. (Gen. 
xxxiv. 21.) Now it is, to say the least, very remarkable that their ser- 
vants arc always left out of the enumeration when their wealth alone 
is indicated, if they were property in the hands of their masters. 

* Prince's Digest; p. 446. t Wheeler, p. 28. 



[ 7 ] 

2. The status of these servants must have been very different from 
that of a slave, because they were the legal heirs of their masters, in 
case the master had no children. "And Abram said, Behold, to me 
thou hast given no seed ; and lo, one born in my house is mine heir." 
Ishmael, too, the son of Hagar, Sarah's handmaid, was also entitled to 
a part of the inheritance. To prevent this, it was also necessary to 
drive out Hagar and her son from the family. " Cast out this bond- 
woman and her son; for the son of this bond-woman shall not be heir 
with my son, even with Isaac." (Gen. xxi. 10.) Now, was it ever 
heard that such a thing had occurred in the whole history of slavery? 
Was any Southern slaveholder ever under the necessity of driving out 
some dark-skinned Hagar, lest her son, and his son, a bright, copper- 
coloured Ishmael, should be an heir equally with the children of his 
white wife? The very law which creates the status of the slave, for- 
bids it. When he is made the goods and chattels of his master, it 
would be as preposterous to speak of his being an heir, as it would to 
predicate the like of his horse or ox. "A slave is one who is in the 
power of a master, to whom he belongs. The master may sell him, 
dispose of his person, his industry, and his labour; he can do nothing, 
possess nothing, nor acquire anything but what must belong to. his 
master."* Had they been slaves, then, of the same class with Ame- 
rican slaves, they would have been, in relation to heirship, as well as 
every thing else, in the power of the master. 

3. The children of female servants, when they became secondary 
wives of their masters, were on a perfect equality with the children of 
the first wife. Jacob first married two sisters, Leah and Rachel. 
Both of these had children. He also took their handmaids, Zilpah and 
Bilhah, as secondary wives. These two women also had children, Dan 
and Naphtali, Gad and Asher. Now, when Jacob comes to die, and 
pronounce the patriarchal benediction on his sons, these children are 
placed on a perfect equality with the sons of Leah and Rachel. " Dan 
shall judge his people as one of the tribes of Israel." "Out of Asher 
his bread shall be fat, and he shall yield royal dainties." (Gen. xxx. 
5 — 13; xlix. 16 — 21.) Had these female servants been slaves, their 
children never could have been on an equality with the sons of the 
first wife; for the laf of slavery is partus sequitur ventrem, the child 
follows the condition of the mother. If they had been slaves, this law 
would have made their children slaves. 

4. The fact of their being bought with money, is no proof that they 
were slaves. (1.) Because the Hebrew word, (ka?ia,) translated 
" bought," signifies primarily, to create, to found; and secondarily, to 
get, to obtain, to acquire. When Cain was born, Eve says: — "I have 
gotten (fcanthe) a man from the Lord." (Gen. iv. 1.) Solomon 
says: — "With all thy getting, get (Jcena) understanding." (Prov. 
iv. 7.) " He that heareth reproof, getteth (Jcana) understand- 
ing." (Prov. xv. 32.) In Isaiah xi. 11, it is translated "recover." 
" The Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover (le- 
Jcanoth) the remnant of his people." It is evident, then, that the 
word, as applied to servants, might with equal propriety be rendered 
"obtained," or "acquired." Now, how do men get hired servants? 

* Civil Code of Louisiana; Stroud, p. 22. 



[ 8 ] 

(2.) Because there are many instances mentioned of the buying of 
persons, in which slavery is out of the question. It is plain that Ja- 
cob bought Leah and Rachel. It is true he did not pay money for 
them, but labour; nevertheless they say of their father, "For he hath 
sold us." Were they Jacob's slaves? Again, Boaz bought Ruth. 
" Moreover Ruth, the Moabitess, the -wife of Mahlon, have I pur- 
chased." (Ruth iv. 10.) Was she his slave? We read, too, that the 
prophet Hosea made a similar purchase: — " So I bought her to me for 
fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and a half ho- 
mer of barley." (Hos. iii. 2.) Now all these must have been slaves — 
goods and chattels, if Abraham's buying or getting servants with 
money converted them into property. 

5. The case of Hagar, and her being sent back by the angel, is no 
proof that they were slaves. It is, indeed, regarded as very conclu- 
sive by pro-slavery men. It is Dr. Rice's first Bible argument in fa- 
vour of slaveholding. "My first proof is, that Hagar was the female 
slave of Abraham and Sarah." Great stress is laid on the meaning 
of the Hebrew word shifha. "Sarah calls her 'my maid.' The He- 
brew word shifha, translated maid, signifies a female slave." * In de- 
termining the meaning of a word, it is in vain to parade lexicons and 
commentaries. There is a higher law by which even lexicons must be 
tried, and that law is usage or custom. A Roman rhetorician says, 
" Consuetudo omnium clomina rernm, turn maxime verborum est;" 
that is, Usage is the mistress of all things, but especially of words. 
Horace, in his Ars De Poetica, speaking of the influence of usage, or 
custom, in retaining or rejecting words, says: — 

"Si volet usus 
Queni penes arbitrium est, et jus, et norma loquendi. ,; 

which is thus freely rendered by Francis, 

"Whose arbitrary sway 
The words and forms of language must obey. 1 ' 

Dr. Campbell, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, endorses this, and adds: 
"Every tongue whatsoever, is founded in use or custom." By this 
rule let the word shifha be tried. It is found in the following, among 
many other places. Ruth ii. 18: — "Thou hast spoken friendly unto 
thine handmaid." Here Ruth calls herself the shtfha of Boaz, and 
of course she must have been his female slave ! In 1 Sam. i. 18, Han- 
nah speaking to Eli says, " Let thine handmaid (shifha) find grace in 
thy sight." Was she Eli's female slave? The wife of Nabal thus ad- 
dresses David : — " Let thy handmaid (shifha) abide a servant, to wash 
the feet of the servants of my lord." (1 Sam. xxv. 41.) See also 2 
Kings iv. 2. It is applied to Bilhah and Zilpah, the handmaids of 
Leah and Rachel. (Gen. xxix. 24, 29.) Now, does the application of 
this word to them indicate that they were slaves? Josephus, a Jew- 
ish priest and historian, undoubtedly understood the Hebrew language 
better than any of our modern doctors of divinity, and he says: — 
" Zilpah was handmaid to Leah, and Bilhah to Rachel, by no means 
slaves; but, however, subject to their mistresses. "f Will any assert that 
he did not know the meaning of the word shifha? The meaning of 

* Debate with Blanchard, p. 260. 

t Jewish Antiquities, p. 40, Morgan & Sanxay Ed. 



[ 9 J 

the word, then, is a slippery foundation on which to stand in this ar- 
gument. 

Was there any thing, then, in her condition indicating that she was 
a slave? No. It has been shown that her son was Abraham's heir, 
and consequently her condition was not that of a slave. The treat- 
ment which she received at the hand of Sarah is no evidence that she 
was a slave. " Hagar," says Dr. Rice, "was punished by Sarali for 
contemptuous behaviour." * Another doctor, of the same school, says 
that "it was severe corporeal punishment." They both seem to think 
that this is pretty plain proof that she was a slave. It might be a 
question with some who are not favoured with so much light as doc- 
tors of divinity are supposed to have, where they got their information. 
The Bible says no such thing. It says, " When Sarah dealt hardly 
with her, she fled from her face." (Gen. xvi. 6.) This, however, is 
entirely consistent with the idea of her being a hired servant. It is 
no uncommon thing to hear hired labourers complaining that their em- 
ployers have dealt hardly with them. 

There is, moreover, no difficulty in accounting for the angel's direct- 
ing her to return, and be subject to her mistress. For the subjection 
is no more than is required of them that are hired. The hired la- 
bourer is required to submit to the orders of his employer. Bilhah 
and Zilpah were subject to their mistresses, though by no means slaves. 
And she was under obligations to return, because she had become 
Abraham's wife, and as such bound to remain in the house of her hus- 
band. Even anti-slavery men advise wives not to leave their husbands. 

If Hagar was a slave, why were Abraham and Sarah under the ne- 
cessity of driving her out, to prevent Ishmael's inheriting part of the 
estate? Why did they not think of selling her and her boy, just as 
the pious Christian of the South sells his black concubine, and his and 
her children, whenever he wishes to be rid of their presence ? How 
was it that they found it necessary to " cast her out," especially when 
Sarah was a mistress so very cruel, that she inflicted severe corporeal 
punishment upon her? The patriarchs of the South never find them- 
selves under the necessity of doing so with their slaves. On the con- 
trary, they have great difficulty to prevent their escaping on under- 
ground railroads. They find' fugitive slave laws, and blood-hounds, 
and United States marshals, more ferocious, and incomparably meaner 
than blood-hounds, necessary in order to prevent their Hagars and 
Ishmaels from taking unceremonious leave for regions lying toward 
the North Star. 

The query will no doubt be raised, If the patriarchal servants were 
not slaves, what were they? It is sufficient to say, If they were not 
slaves, it is no matter what they were, so far as this controversy is 
concerned. The argument for slavery, drawn from this servitude, must 
be futile. A little reflection, however, should convince any one that 
their condition was a voluntary one. The sacred historian relates an 
instance of Abraham, when a stranger dwelling in the plain of Mamre, 
arming three hundred trained servants, and pursuing after the cap- 
tors of Lot to Hobah, on the left of Damascus. Now, calculating ac- 
cording to the usual proportion of those able to bear arms, Abraham 

* Debate with Blauchard, p. 261. 



[ io ] 

must have had nearly two thousand servants. ' But what power had 
he to retain them in servitude, contrary to their will? What power 
had he to compel the three hundred armed soldiers to return with him 
from the region of Damascus? Evidently none at all. This, how- 
ever, according to Paley's and Webster's definition, shows that they 
were not slaves. Webster says: — "Servant differs from slave, as the 
servant's subjection to a master is voluntary, the slave's is not." 

There is little doubt that the servants of Abraham were his clients, 
and that he was their patron. This relation was very common in the 
Roman empire and in Oriental countries. "That the patricians and 
plebeians might be connected together by the strictest bonds, Romulus 
ordained that every plebeian should choose from the patricians any one 
he pleased, as his patron, or protector, whose client he was called, 
(quod eum colebat.) It was the part of the patron to advise and to 
defend his client, to assist him with his interest and substance; in 
short, to do every thing for him that a parent uses to do for his chil- 
dren. The client was obliged to pay all kinds of respect to his patron, 
and to serve him with life and fortune in any extremity. It was 
esteemed highly honourable for a patrician to have numerous clients, 
both hereditary and acquired, by his own merit. In after times, even 
cities and whole nations were under the protection of illustrious Roman 
families." * 

II. In the Jewish servitude. This is regarded as the stronghold of 
slavery. Intrenched in this fortification, the defenders of the system 
defy all attempts to dislodge them. But however secure they imagine 
themselves, the hope of driving them from their retreat is not alto- 
gether a vain one. The truth is mighty, and before it the high towers 
of error tremble and fall. It is hoped, then, that not only can the 
slaveholding forces be driven from this Sevastopol, but also that the 
hosts of freedom will be able to take possession, and to run up on it3 
walls the flag of victory, with the inscription, "Proclaim liberty through- 
out all the land to all the inhabitants thereof." For — 

1. The word evedh, by which the Jewish servant is designated, does 
not prove that they were slaves. All who attempt to defend slavery, 
maintain that this word means a slave. This is their main argument. 
Dr. Rice says: — "The word used, and 'translated servant and bond- 
man, is the proper Hebrew word for slave." " The sakir is the hired 
servant; and evedh is the bondman, or slave." Again, he says: — 
" They are designated by a word which uniformly means slave." f The 
amount of truth in these assertions will appear, when it is shown that 
the word, so far from uniformly signifying slave, is used in at least six 
different senses. The following passages, in which the Hebrew word 
evedh is used, and translated servants, will illustrate. It is used, then, 
to designate — 

(1.) The subjects of a prince. " Is not this David, the servant (evedh) 
to Saul?" (1 Sam. xxix. 3.) It is applied to the whole army of Is- 
rael. " Am not I a Philistine, and ye servants (avadim) to Saul ?" (1 
Sam. xvii. 8.) So speaks Uriah to David, of the army: — "My lord 
Joab, and the (avedhe) servants of my lord are encamped in the field." 
(2 Sam. xi. 11.) "And all the men of Judah, the king's (avedhe) ser- 
vants." (1 Kings i. 9.) 



* Adams' lioman Antiquities, pp. 36, 37. f Debate, pp. 290, 291, 406. 



[ 11 ] 

(2.) Military attendants. "Now Saul abode in Gibeah, under a 
tree in Ramah, having his spear in his hand, and all his (avadhai) ser- 
vants were standing about him." (1 Sam. xxii. 6.) The next verse 
shows the character of these servants. " Then Saul said unto his ser- 
vants that stood about him, Hear now, ye Benjamites." They were 
his body guards. 

(3.) The attendants and ministers of a king. Ahimaaz applies it to 
himself and Cushi. " When Joab sent the king's servants, (evedh.) and 
me thy (evedh) servant." (2 Sam. xviii. 29.) " And Jeroboam, the son 
of Nebat, an Ephrathite of Zereda, Solomon's (evedli) servant." (1 
Kings xi. 26.) Compare verse 28. "And the man Jeroboam was a 
mighty man of valour; and Solomon seeing the young man that he \va3 
industrious, he made him ruler over all the charge of the hou^e of 
Joseph." ' 

(4.) Ambassadors of high rank and distinguished honour. "And 
Balak sent yet again princes, more, and more honourable than they." 
(Num. xxii. 15.) "And Balaam answered, and said unto the (avadhe) 
servants of Balak." (Num. xxii. 18.) If pro-slavery critics are cor- 
rect, these honourable persons were Balak's slaves, tor they are desig- 
nated by a word which they assert uniformly means slaves. 

(5.) The relation which Christ, as Mediator, sustains to th§ Father. 
" Behold my (evedh,) servant, whom I uphold." (Isa. xlii. 1.) Compare 
Matt. xii. 18. "Behold, my {evedli) shall deal prudently." (Isa. lii. 
13.) See also Zech. iii. 8. 

(6.) It is used as an expression of civility. Thus Jacob calls him- 
self the servant of Esau. " They be thy (evedli) servant Jacob's." 
(Gen. xxxii. 18.) Judah styles himself, his brethren, and his father, 
the servants of Joseph. "And thy (avadhe) shall bring down the 
gray hairs of thy (evedli) servant with sorrow to the grave." (Gen. 
xiiv. 31.) Nathan, the prophet, thus addresses David: — "But me, 
even me, thy (avedh) servant, and Zadok the priest, and Benaiah the 
son of Jehoiada, and thy (evedh) servant Solomon, hath he not called." 
(1 Kings i. 26.) Were Nathan and Solomon David's slaves ? 

It is most evident, then, that we cannot determine the status of the 
Jewish servant by the meaning of the Hebrew word avedh. We must 
first ascertain the status of the servant, and then we can ascertain the 
meaning of the word. 

2. The Hebrew servant bought for six years, was not a slave. The 
servants, indeed, of this class, are designated by the term evedh, not- 
withstanding the assertions of doctors of divinity that they are never 
so styled. "He did, indeed, tell us in a former speech that the lie- 
brew servant sold for six years, is called eved; but such is not the fact. 
On the contrary, that class of servants is contrasted with the eved." * 
This serves to show that even doctors of divinity are not always as well 
acquainted with their Bible as they should be, for in Ex. xxi. 2 we 
have the following language: — "If thou buy an Hebrew (evedlt) ser- 
vant, six years shall he serve." If the Hebrew servant was a slave, 
then evedh means slave when applied to them; but if they were only 
hired servants, then it does not have this meaning. The main argu- 
ment to show that they were slaves, is that they were bought. But 

* Rice, Debate, p. 444. 



[ 12 ] 

this, as before shown, utterly fails. In this case the word means to 
obtain by hiring. This appears very plainly in Deut. xv. 12 — 14, 
where the same class of servants is spoken of. "And if thy brother, 
an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman be sold unto thee, and serve thee 
six years, then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from 
thee." "And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt 
not let him go away empty. Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of 
thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine press; of that 
wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, thou shalt give unto 
him." Moreover, the servant himself concluded the contract with his 
employer in the beginning of the term of service. The Hebrew reads 
thus: — " If thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, {yim- 
maker,) sell himself unto thee." The word is in the niphal form of 
the verb, which, as the Hebrew scholar knows, is reflexive in its sig- 
nification. Gesenius says: — "It is primarily reflexive, as to hide 
one's self, to grieve one's self." Accordingly, the word which in Deut. 
xv. 12 is rendered sold, is in Lev. xxv. 47 translated sell himself. 
This mode of obtaining servants was established by law in the Jewish 
commonwealth. " Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel ; I made a 
covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out 
of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondmen, saying, At the end 
of seven years, let ye go every man his brother an Hebrew, which 
(yimmalcer) hath been sold unto thee." (Jer. xxxiv. 13, 14.) In the 
margin it is translated " sold himself unto thee." This is the federal 
law of Israel. The conclusion, then, is unavoidable, that they were 
hired servants, notwithstanding they are styled evedhs. This, one of 
slavery's greatest champions admits. " The Jew, who had become 
poor, and sold himself for six years, and who was to be treated, not as 
a slave, but as a hired servant. (Lev. xxv. 40.) This class is spoken 
of also in Ex. xxi. 2." * " The Hebrew servant sold for six years, was 
not to be treated as an eved, a slave, but as a sakir, a hired servant." f 
Now, as this class is also styled evedh, how much is the famous argu- 
ment for slavery, drawn from the meaning of the word, worth? 

It is argued, however, that the law gave the father a right to sell 
his daughter for a slave. This is based on Ex. xxi. 7: — "And if a 
man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the 
men-servants do." If this stood alone, there might be some plausibi- 
lity in the argument; but the context clearly shows the nature and 
design of this transaction. The selling was only the conclusion of a 
marriage contract, and receiving a dowry, with the agreement also that 
she should labour in the service of her future husband until she ar- 
rived at maturity. In the next verse it is said: — "If she please not 
her master who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be 
redeemed; to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, 
seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her." 

The advocate of slavery puts in the following plea: — "If a master 
gave his man-servant a wife, and she bore him children, then she 
should not go out with her husband, but she and her children should 
be her master's." (Ex. xxi. 4.) The answer, however, is easy. The 
law fixed the term of service, both for a man and a woman, at six 

* Rice, Debate, p. 265. f Id., p. 318. 



[ 13 ] 

years. (Deut. xv. 12 — 14.) Now, when the master obtained the woman 
as a servant, the law bound him to let her go out in the seventh year. 
If, then, she does not go out with her husband, to whom she has been 
given, it is simply because her term of service has not expired, and she 
was still bound by her own contract to her employer. So soon, how- 
ever, as the six years expire, then she shall go out. She and her chil- 
dren shall be her master's only until the expiration of this period. 

3. The heathen bond-men were not slaves. This class is mentioned 
in Leviticus xxv. 44, 45. " Both thy bond-men and thy bond-maids, 
which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about 
you; of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of 
the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall 
ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they beget in 
your land; and they shall be your possession." These servants, it 
will be perceived, were obtained from two sources. (1.) From resi- 
dent Gentiles — "the stranger that is among you." (Verse 45.) Now 
this class of servants could not have" been slaves, for the same law ap- 
plied to them which applied to the natives of the land. "Ye shall 
have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your 
own country." (Lev. xxiv. 22.) Applying this law, they too must 
have been hired servants. They-made the contract themselves in re- 
ference to their servitude, and also went out at the expiration of their 
term of service. If it be denied that they made disposition for them- 
selves, then we may ask, Who had the, right to dispose of them? The 
Jewish civil ruler did not claim that right; and if he had, would not 
the exercise of such a power at once have prevented the foreigner from 
coming among them? Would it not also have been the means of 
driving every stranger from the land of Israel? Suppose such a law 
were passed in the United States, how long would the foreign population 
remain residents in this country? How many would be found emi- 
grating to a land where the law consigned them to hopeless bondage? 
It will not be pretended that one foreigner had a right to lay hold on 
another, and sell him for a slave, for this would be kidnapping. The 
native Hebrew could not sell them, for the same reason. The conclu- 
sion is, that they hired themselves, or sold their time to the Hebrews. 

(2.) From surrounding nations — "the heathen round about you." 
(Verse 44.) But the question at once arises, Were they bought of a 
third party? This cannot be admitted. For to have done so would 
have been man-stealing, according to Scriptural teaching. This case 
of Joseph will illustrate. "For indeed I was stolen away out of the 
land of the Hebrews." (Gen. xl. 15.) Who stole him? Did his bre- 
thren steal him away out of the land of the Hebrews? Where was 
Dothan ? Not out of the land of the Hebrews. Who, then, stole him 
out of that land? The Ishmaelites. But did they not buy him? 
Yes, but from a third party, and therefore says Joseph, " Indeed I 
was stolen." According to Scriptural testimony, then, buying a man 
from a third party, is man-stealing. To this crime the law affixed the 
highest penalty. "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if 
he be found in his hands, he shall surely be put to death." (Ex. xxi. 
16.) This at once precludes the idea of buying from a third party. 
Moreover, the Hebrew law did not recognise the heathen servant as 
the lawful property of his master. Had this been the case, it never 



[ 14 ] 

could have forbidden the Hebrew to deliver the fugitive to his master. 
" Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped 
from his master unto thee." (Deut. xxiii. 15.) If he had been re- 
garded as the lawful property of his master, no man, no organization 
of men, could have justly detained him. The man who detains or con- 
ceals the property of another is a thief, and therefore the injunction 
forbidding the Hebrew to deliver up the heathen servant is plain proof 
that he was not regarded as the property of the master by moral right. 
Never, then, could God permit his people to recognise this right by 
purchasing from them. They obtained them, therefore, in the same 
way that all the other servants were obtained, that is, by hiring them 
for a definite period. 

It is objected, however, that these were undoubtedly slaves, because 
they are contrasted with the hired servant. " The bond-men, and 
bond-maids here spoken of, are not only distinguished from, but put 
in contrast with hired servants. The contrast in which the hired 
servant is here placed with reference to the bond-servant, as well as 
the words by which the two are respectively designated, proves beyond 
question, that the latter was a slave." * This is by no means so unan- 
swerable as its author seems to think. It fails to prove that the bond- 
men were slaves, for the same distinction is made in reference to those 
admitted to be only hired servants. It will be remembered that the 
same learned doctor admits that the Hebrew servant sold for six years, 
was a hired servant. But he is also contrasted with the class called 
hired servants. "It shall not seem hard unto thee when thou sendest 
him away free from thee; for he hath been worth a double hired ser- 
vant to thee in serving thee six years." (Deut. xv. 18.) Now, if the 
argument were a good one, it would prove that the Hebrew servant for 
six years, which he admits was only a hired servant, was a slave. The 
difficulty which is to this doctor of divinity insurmountable, is removed 
at once by making an accurate distinction between evedh, translated 
servant, or bond-servant, and sakir, translated hired servant. The 
evedh is one employed for a term of years, to perform all kinds of la- 
bour. The Hebrew verb avadh, which determines the meaning of the 
noun, signifies to labour. " Six days shalt thou (fa avodh) labour, and 
do all thy work." (Ex. xx. 9.) "And there was not a man to till 
(leavodh) the ground." (Gen. ii. 5.) Now this determines the mean- 
ing of the noun evedh, just as in English, when we say that the verb 
to labour means to perform any or all kinds of work, we thereby de- 
termine the meaning of the noun labourer to be one who performs all 
kinds of work. Such, then, was the evedh, or bond-servant. The sa- 
kir, translated hired servant, was a labourer receiving his wages daily. 
" The wages of him that is hired (sakir) shall not abide with thee all 
night until the morning." (Lev. xix. 13.) " Thou shalt not oppress a 
hired servant, (sakir.) At his day thou shalt give him his hire, nei- 
ther shall the sun go down upon it." (Deut. xxiv. 14, 15.) Compare 
Matt. xx. 1 — 8: — " So, when the even was come, the lord of the vine- 
yard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their 
hire." This removes all difficulty arising from the contrast of evedh, 
or bond-servant, with the sakir, or hired servant. The one is a ser- 

* Rice, Debate, 266, 267. 



[ 15 ] 

vant hired for a term of years ; the other a labourer to whom wages 
were given daily, although he may have been employed for a definite 
period of time. 

Again, great stress is laid upon the provision in the law by which 
these servants were to descend to the children of the master as an in- 
heritance. "And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your chil- 
dren after you, to inherit them for a possession." (Lev. xxv. 46.) The 
points in this argument are two. (1.) That the word "for ever" ex- 
presses an unlimited period of time. Dr. llice says: — "Does this law 
mean a short apprenticeship? The Universalist tells us that for ever 
does not mean for ever, but only a limited time; but I never heard 
before that it signifies so short a period us five years! The term em- 
ployed is the strongest in the Hebrew language, and yet it mea,r\s Jive 
years!" * Another doctor, of high standing, uses the following lan- 
guage: — "If for ever means but thirty days, or ten days, or one day, 
then rejoice all ye devils, and damned spirits; rejoice, ye thieves, and 
liars, and drunkards, and profane swearers, and Sabbath-breakers; 
for behold we bring unto you glad tidings — we proclaim in hell a uni- 
versal jubilee: you shall be punished, indeed, forever; but then, glory 
be to licentious criticism, for ever means but thirty days, or one day." f 
These D. D's. seem to be quite amazed that any one should attempt 
to explain the word for ever in a limited sense. The latter, meditating 
on the licentiousness of criticism in this age, is grieved at heart. He 
has a regular mental spasm. His spirits are fearfully distracted. 
But, dear friends, be composed. Gird up the loins of your minds, and 
be sober ; for it is even so that/or ever is frequently used in a limited 
sense. In the following passages every one knows that its significa- 
tion is limited: — "Ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever." 
(Ex. xii. 14.) " Therefore shall ye observe this day in your genera- 
tions for ever." (Ex. xii. 17.) "And ye shall observe this thing for 
an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever." (Ex. xii. 24.) Will 
these learned gentlemen inform us whether the passover was to be ob- 
served throughout an unlimited period of time? The strongest word 
in the Hebrew language is used ! Again, we find it used with refe- 
rence to the priesthood of Aaron and his sons. " And Aaron was se- 
parated that he should sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons 
for ever, to burn incense before the Lord." (1 Chron. xxiii. 13.) Where 
is the Aaronic priesthood now, if for ever always signifies unlimited 
duration? Jonah, too, says: — "The earth with her bars was about 
me for ever." (Jonah ii. 6.) How long was the for ever that Jonah 
was in the belly of the fish? If their arguments prove anything, they 
prove that they were to be their bond-servants eternally— not in this 
life only, but in the world to come. If they do not mean this, then all 
their talk is idle rant. But do they not see that for ever is here li- 
mited by the nature of the case? At most it can only mean to the end 
of their lives ; and if it can and must be thus far limited, then there 
cannot be anything in the meaning of the word forbidding us to limit 
it to a much shorter period. It is a word that can be limited, and the 
limitation will depend on the nature and circumstances of the case. 
In this instance it cannot be extended beyond the year of jubilee. 

* Debate, p. 404. f Junkin. 



[ 16 ] 

"And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty through- 
out all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." (Lev. xxv. 10.) 
(2.) That the word inheritance signifies property, being frequently ap- 
plied to land, houses, and other kinds of property. The meaning of 
this word must also be determined by the nature of the objects to which 
it relates. When applied to houses, lands, cattle, it denotes property. 
But it is often used when the idea of property can have no place. 
" We have no part in David, neither inheritance in the son of Jesse." 
(1 Sam. xx. 1.) " The Lord God of Israel was their inheritance." 
(Josh. xiii. 33.) The same Hebrew word is used here that is applied 
to the bond-servants; and it is evident, therefore, that we cannot de- 
termine their status by its meaning. 

The design of the law is obvious. While it guarded the rights of 
the servant, it also secured those of the master; and hence, if the mas- 
ter died after obtaining one of those servants, and before his time of 
service had expired, the law would not suffer the servant to defraud 
the master's family by refusing to fulfil his contract and complete his 
term of service. But it made the contract transferable by will, or by 
right of inheritance to his heirs.* This was the more necessary, in- 
asmuch as the servant was often paid in advance, as is evident in the 
redemption of the servant by paying back to his employer a part of 
the money with which he was hired. " He shall give again the price 
of his redemption out of the money that he was bought for." (Lev. 
xxv. 51.) 

III. In the New Testament. There is no particular system of ser- 
vitude described in the New Testament, yet the advocate of slavery 
is confident that he is able to bring from the glorious gospel of God's 
dear Son many very conclusive arguments in favour of his sacred and 
benevolent institution. These arguments it is proposednow to examine. 

1. It is argued that it is not expressly forbidden. If it be meant 
that the New Testament does not say, in so many words, Thou shalt 
not have a slave, or slaveholding is a crime against both God and man, 
it is true. But what does that prove? Is every thing not thus forbid- 
den, just and right? If so, then gambling, horse-racing, polygamy, 
must be innocent things. Who supposes that the New Testament 
sanctions such scenes as were exhibited in the Olympic or Isthmean 
games? No intelligent Christian can for a moment entertain the 
thought. Yet they are not expressly forbidden. 

2. It is alleged that the piety of a man is never called in question 
in the New Testament, because he was a slaveholder. "And I state 
it as a fact, that the piety of a man was never called in question by 
the apostles because he was a slaveholder." f This takes for granted 
that whatever is done by a man, whose piety has never been called in 
question, must be right. We read, however, of some pious men who 
have been guilty of very aggravated sins. The piety of Noah has 
never been called in question, yet Noah was so drunken that he was 
incapable of avoiding indecent exposure. Is drunkenness, therefore, 
an innocent thing? Lot, too, was a man whose piety has never been 
questioned, but he was guilty of drunkenness and incest. David was 

* The Roman patrician sometimes obtained his client by inheritance. They 
were "both hereditary, and acquired by merit." — Adams' Rom. Ant. } p. 37. 
f Bice, Debate, p. 378. t 



[ w ] 

a man after God's own heart; nevertheless, he was guilty of adultery 
and murder. 

3. It is said that the apostle exhorts servants to be submissive to 
their masters, and patiently to remain in their condition, which they 
could not have done if slaveholding is sinful. I answer — (1st.) This 
takes for granted that which must be proved — that the apostles, by 
master and servant, mean slaveholder and slave. This, however, can- 
not be clone. The main reliance is on the meaning of the Greek word 
donlos. which is used in as great a variety of applications as the He- 
brew evedh. One passage will be enough to show that it does not 
prove the servant to be a slave, and consequently the property of his 
master. "A certain king taking account of his servants, {ton dou- 
lon,) found one that owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as 
he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife 
and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made." (Matt, 
xviii. 25.) How would this operate with a slaveholder? He claims 
that one of his slaves owes him a sum of money, but he is unable to 
pay. "Well," says the master to his slave, "I must have my own; 
and if you cannot pay it, I will just sell you, and pay myself." Query, 
How much richer would he be when he had sold the slave, and got the 
money? It would be very much like a man whose horse runs away 
and breaks his buggy, selling the horse to get payment for the buggy. 
(2.) The exhortation to be submissive and patient, does not prove 
slavery to be right. If it did, then it would be morally right for us, 
if we were able, to beat and abuse our fellow-man, for the Redeemer 
himself thus exhorts us — "And unto him that smiteth thee on the one 
cheek, offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid 
not to take thy coat also." (Luke vi. 27.) Is it right to smite a man 
on the cheek, and take away his cloak and his coat? "But," says 
Dr. Spring, referring to 1 Cor. vii. 21, " ' Art thou called being a 
servant? care not for it.' How wise ! how kind! How different from 
some modern reformers! I seem to see the great apostle laying his 
paternal hand on the head of the poor slave, and hear him say, 'Care 
not for your slavery. You are the Lord's freeman. Stay where you 
are, you shall have a throne hereafter.' " * Now, suppose a man with 
the spirit of Patrick Henry reduced to the condition of a slave, and 
some hoary-headed doctor of divinity to approach him, and lay his 
paternal hand on his head, and say, " Care not for your slavery, stay 
where you are." I seem to see that form erect, and that flashing eye, 
as he exclaims, "Infamous traitor to humanity, begone! Give me 
liberty, or give me death!" 

4. It is maintained that Paul sent back Onesimus, a fugitive slave, 
to Philemon, his master. I reply — (1.) That it cannot be proved that 
Onesimus was a slave. It rests for proof altogether on his being called 
doulos; which is, as before shown, not conclusive. (2.) That it was 
evident he was not the property of Philemon, for Paul declares he 
might have retained him. (3.) That his return was voluntary. Paul 
was then a prisoner at Rome, and Philemon's place of residence was 
in Colosse, as is evident from this epistle being addressed to Archip- 
pus, the minister of the church at Colosse, (verse 2,) and from Paul's 

* Obligations of the World to the Bible, pp. 193, 194. 



[ 13 ] 

referring in his epistle to the Colossians to the sending to them One- 
simus, a faithful and beloved brother. (Col. iv. 9.) Now the distance 
between these two places, either by land or water, could not be less 
than eight hundred miles. Then, how preposterous the idea that his 
return was involuntary. Paul, a prisoner in Rome, writes a letter to 
Philemon in Colosse, and gives it to Onesimus, with directions to re- 
turn to his master. But had he been unwilling to return, how could 
Paul have compelled him? He could have taken the letter from Paul, 
and gone his way rejoicing. (4.) That Paul did not send him back to 
be a slave. "For perhaps he departed for a season, that thou should- 
est receive him for ever; not now as a servant, but above a servant, a 
brother beloved." (Verses 15, 16.) Now suppose, for the sake of ar- 
gument, that donlos, rendered servant, signifies a slave. Then, ac- 
cording to the pro-slavery critic's own reading, we will have this in- 
junction given to Philemon by Paul — " That thou shouldest receive 
him for ever; not now as a slave, but above a slave." How much 
would the Southern patriarch consider himself indebted to some mi- 
nister of the gospel at the North, were he to send back a fugitive from 
Chicago or New York to Charleston, with a letter to his master direct- 
ing him not to receive the fugitive as a slave, but above a slave, a 
brother beloved? The case of Onesimus is an unfortunate one for the 
defender of slaveholding. 

5. The concessions of those who attempt to justify slaveholding from 
the Bible show the falsehood of their assumptions and arguments. 
The great champion of slavery in the West, Dr. Rice, uses the follow- 
ing language: — "In the slaveholding, as well as in the free states, it 
is admitted and maintained, that to reduce a freeman into a state 
of slavery, is a crime of the first magnitude." * Now, I here submit 
one question. If an act is, in the beginning, a crime of the first mag- 
nitude, how long must a man continue to peiform that act, before it 
is sanctified, and becomes morally right in God's sight? Again he 
says: — "Nor is the question before us, whether slavery is an evil, a 
very great evil, which should be removed as speedily as it can be done 
by the operation of correct principles. This we cheerfully admit." f 
" That slavery, wherever it exists, is an evil of enormous magnitude, 
we do not doubt." J Now evils are of two kinds, physical and moral. 
Now if he means that it is a physical evil, how puerile and silly to spend 
precious time in proving that it is not in itself sinful! What would be 
thought of the man who would stand up gravely in the face of open 
day, to prove from the Bible that a carbuncle, or the gout, was not in 
itself sinful? The conclusion would be quite unanimous that the be- 
nevolent should do something to secure him a place in one of those 
charitable institutions called lunatic asylums. If he means that it is 
a moral evil, surely his moral sense cannot be so depraved and obtuse 
that he does not perceive the inexpressible wickedness of attempting 
to press into its justification God's holy, just, and good law. Or is it 
so that the malign influence of slavery so blinds the mind, and sears 
and petrifies the conscience, that a man can really believe that the 
holy God approves moral evil or sin ? But he declares again : — " I do 
not defend slavery as an institution that ought to be perpetuated. I 
am not a pro-slavery man. I am opposed to slavery." § How is this ? 

* Debate, p. 26. f Idem, p. 30. % Presbyterian Expositor, Oct., 1858, p. 5SS, 

§ Debate, p. 33. 



[ io ] 

The Bible, he would have us believe, is favourable to slavery. Is he 
not then for what the Bible sanctions % Is he opposed to what the Bi- 
ble approves? Or is he so much more humane and merciful than the 
Author of that book? I have quite an admiration of any man who be- 
comes so much better than the holy Scriptures require him to be ! 

Dr. Spring, notwithstanding he apologizes for slavery, is constrained 
to make the following admission: — "Thus do the Scriptures of the 
Old and New Testament treat the subject of slavery. They sanction 
no other slavery than this. The exclusive title of man over a fellow- 
worm, who belongs not to him, but to God; the assertion of any hu- 
man will as supreme over a fellow-creature, when there is no supreme 
will in heaven or earth but the Divine will; the lording it over the 
conscience of the slave, when God alone is Lord of the conscience — 
this they rebuke and indignantly condemn."* Now let it be remem- 
bered that slavery creates an absolute title of one man over an- 
other, and that this is its distinctive and essential element, and Dr. 
Spring says that the Bible indignantly rebukes this. "We say, Amen. 

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church adopted, in 1818, 
the following on the subject of slavery: — 

" We consider the voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race 
by another, as a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights 
of human nature; as utterly inconsistent with the law of God, which re- 
quires us to love our neighbour as ourselves, and as totally irreconci- 
lable with the spirit and principles of the gospel of Christ, which re- 
quires that " All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, 
do ye even so to them." Slavery creates a paradox in the moral sys- 
tem; it exhibits rational, accountable, and immortal beings in such cir- 
cumstances as scarcely to leave the power of moral action. It exhibits 
them as dependent on the will of others, whether they shall receive re- 
ligious instruction ; whether they shall know and worship the true God; 
whether they shall, enjoy the ordinances of the gospel; whether they 
shall perform the duties, and cherish the endearments of husbands and 
wives, parents and children, neighbours and friends ; whether they shall 
preserve their chastity and purity, or regard the dictates of justice 
humanity. Such are some of the consequences of slavery — conse- 
quences not imaginary, but which connect themselves with its very 

existence. "f 

IV. I shall state and illustrate a few principles contained in the 
Old and New Testaments, which will show their hostility to slavery. 

1. All men are on an equality as respects natural rights. What- 
ever rights man possesses are given him by God, the Supreme Ruler and 
source of all power. The extent of his dominion is fixed in the ori- 
ginal grant given to man. "And God said, Let us make man in our 
image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of 
the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over 
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that crecpeth on the earth." 
(Gen. i. 20.) Over the lower ranks of creation God made him lord, 
but over man he gave him no authority. Every one bearing the image 
of God, stands on a perfect equality in this respect. The pious Job 
teaches us the same doctrine. "If I did despise the cause of my man- 
servant, or of my maid-servant, when tbey contended with me; what 

* Obligations of the World to the Bible, p. 195. f Digest, p. 274. 



[ 20 ] 

then shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visiteth, what shall 
I answer him? Did not he tkat made me in the womb, make him? 
and did not one fashion us in the womb? (Job xxxi. 13 — 15.) The 
great apostle Paul says, " He hath made of one blood all nations of 
men to dwell on all the face of the earth." (Acts xvii. 26.) The man, 
then, who claims lordship over his fellow — who claims property in his 
fellow-man, is a usurper of the prerogatives and dominion of the Al- 
mighty. 

2. We are enjoined to honour all men. " Honour all men." (1 Pet. 
ii. 17.) The term, " all," is here used in its most extensive significa- 
tion. And according to this teaching, honour is due to every man, 
whatever may be his country, his condition, or colour. There is given 
to the very nature of man a dignity that elevates him above the con- 
dition of a chattel. He is made in the image of the great Creator. 
He possesses a rational and immortal nature. This elevates him in 
dignity, not only above the inanimate parts of creation, but also above 
the irrational order of animate beings. " For thou hast made him a 
little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and ho- 
nour." (Ps. viii. 5.) This gives dignity to every human being, and 
obedience to the injunction of the apostle requires us to treat him as 
one possessed of this high dignity and honour. Acting on this prin- 
ciple toward our fellow-man, giving to every one the honour due to 
the immortal nature which he possesses, will abolish slavery through- 
out the earth. Before we can reduce our brother-man to the condi- 
tion of an irrational animal, or inanimate matter, before we can regard 
him as our property, and make him "goods and chattels," we must 
lose sight of the native nobility of his nature, and every emotion of 
regard or honour for him must be extinguished in the soul. All reve- 
rence, too, for God, in whose image man was created, must be lost be- 
fore he can be so treated. Among the Romans, the trampling upon, 
or breaking the image or statue of a person of rank, was regarded as 
a mark of deep dishonour. So, in modern times, when men would ex- 
press great contempt for a man, or fix upon him public disgrace, they 
burn, or hang, or shoot him in effigy. Now this same principle holds 
in reference to God, in whose image man is created. " He that op- 
pressed the poor, reproacheth his Maker." (Prov. xiv. 31.) "Whoso 
mocketh the poor, reproacheth his Maker." (Prov. xvii. 5.) Whoso en- 
slaveth man made in the image of God, reproaches God himself. 

3. We are commanded to love our neighbour as ourselves. " Thou 
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; I am the Lord." (Lev. xix. 18.) 
"And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy- 
self." (Matt. xxii. 29.) If any one should be disposed to ask, like the 
lawyer of old, "Who is my neighbour?" let the Saviour teach him. 
Having referred to the case of the man who fell among thieves, and 
related the manner in which he was treated by the priest, Levite, and 
Samaritan, he asks, "Which of these three, thinkest thou, was neigh- 
bour to him who fell among the thieves?" " He said, He that showed 
mercy on him." (Luke x. 20 — 37.) This Jesus recognises as a correct 
answer, thus teaching us that every one to whom we can do good is 
our neighbour. Now if we love him as ourselves, we cannot require 
him to labour for us without remuneration, " For love worketh no ill to 
his neighbour." (Rom. xiii. 10.) But to defraud him of wages, is evi- 
dence most conclusive that we do not love him as ourselves. Much 



[ 21 ] 

more is it evidence of our want of love when we make him a slave — 
chattelize him, and sell him as stock in the market. It is, moreover, 
an act of the highest injustice — one against which the Divine indigna- 
tion is denounced. "Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unright- 
eousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour's ser- 
vice without wages, and giveth him not for his work." (Jer. xxii. 13.) 
" Behold the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields 
which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth; and the cries of them that 
have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth." 
(Jas. v. 4.) 

4. Kidnapping, or man-stealing, is forbidden. "He that stealeth 
a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely 
be put to death." (Ex. xxi. 46.) This law lays the axe to the root of 
slavery, especially to the slavery of this country. Every one knows 
that it originated in piracy- — in stealing men and women in Africa, 
bringing them over to this country, and selling them in the market like 
any other articles of merchandise. Now, the law quoted above, fixes 
the penalty of death upon all concerned in this inexpressibly wicked 
transaction. (1.) Those that stole them ought to have been put to 
death. " He that stealeth a man, shall surely be put to death." (2.) 
Those who buy or inherit them, should be treated in the same manner. 
"Or if he be found in his hands, he shall surely be put to death." 
All, therefore, who are concerned in slaveholding in this land, are 
thieves of the worst class, and deserve death, according to the Divine 
law. To all who apologize for them the following language is appli- 
cable. " When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him." 
(Ps. 1. 18.) It will not do for the advocate of slavery to say that the 
law in reference to man-stealing is repealed, for then he must admit 
the repeal of all those laws to which he appeals for its justification. 
If they are still in force, so is the law quoted above. Moreover, we 
find that this law is brought over and incorporated in the New Testa- 
ment. " Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, 
but for the lawless and disobedient — for men-stealers." The Greek 
word signifies slaveholders. It is andrapodistais, which Robinson thus 
defines: — " Andrapadistes, (andrapodidzo, to enslave, from andrapo- 
don, a slave,) a man- stealer, a kidnapper." Now the apostle declares 
the law was made for him. But to what law does he refer? Clearly 
to the law recorded Ex. xxi. 16, requiring all such characters to be 
put to death. In this connexion he also teaches that slaveholding is 
contrary to the doctrines and precepts of the gospel. " The law is 
made for man-stealers, (slaveholders,) and if there be any other thing 
that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of 
the blessed God." (1 Tim. i. 9-11.)- 

The following note was appended by the Presbyterian Church, 1793, 
to the enumeration of sins forbidden in the eighth commandment: — 
" 1 Tim. i. 10. The law is made for men-stealers. This crime, 
among the Jews, exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment, 
(Ex. xxi. 16;) and the apostle here classes them with sinners of the 
first rank. The word he uses, in its original import, comprehends all 
who are concerned in bringing any of the human race into slavery, or in 
retaining them in it. Ilominumfures, qui, s< rvosvel liberos abducunt, 
retinent, vendunt, vel emunt. Stealers of men are all those who bring 
off slaves or freemen, and keep, sell, or buy them." 



[ 22 ] 

5. Slaveholding will bring down the judgment of God on all who 
are engaged in it. " He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall 
save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the op- 
pressor." (Ps. lxxii. 4.) " He shall redeem their souls from deceit and 
violence, and precious shall their blood be in his sight." (Ps. lxxii. 
14.) " The Lord executeth righteous judgment for all that are op- 
pressed." (Ps. ciii. C>.) And where is the nation of antiquity, guilty 
of slavery, that has not felt the Divine vengeance? Egypt, once a pow- 
erful and wealthy kingdom, was desolated by Divine judgment for this 
sin. "Also that nation whom they serve, will I judge." (Gen. xv. 13, 
14.) As the fulfilment of this, witness the ten terrible plagues on that 
land. "lie gave them hail for rain, and flaming fire in their haul. 
He smote their vines also, and their fig frees, and broke the trees of 
their coasts. He smote, also, all the first-born in the land, the chief of 
their strength." The beautiful and wealthy Tyro, also, was guilty of 
this sin. To her Ezekiel is sent, to reprove her sins, and threaten her 
with Divine judgment. Commissioned by the Most High, he charges 
the following, among other sins, upon her: — " Javan, Tubal, and Me- 
shech, they were thy merchants, they traded the persons of men and 
vessels of brass in thy market." (Ezek. xxvii. 13.) On this proud and 
haughty city he denounces vengeance. " Thou hast defiled thy sanc- 
tuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traf- 
fic; therefore will I bring forth a fire in the midst of thee; and I will 
bring thee to ashes upon the earth, in the sight of all them that behold 
thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished 
at thee; thou shalt be a terror, and never shall be any more." (Ezek. 
xxviii. 18, 19.) Whether this has been accomplished or not, let the 
slaveholder and his defender answer. In Rome, that proud empire of 
the world, multitudes of slaves were found. And where is Rome? 
Her glory has been trodden in the dust. The blood of the slave, so 
remorselessly shed, was precious and dear in God's sight, and he clothed 
himself with vengeance as with a garment, while he passed in deso- 
lating fury over the empire. The slave population itself was an ele- 
ment in Rome's weakness, and was made contributory to her decline 
and fall. Gibbon, speaking of the slaves in Rome, says: — "Whose 
desperate insurrections had more than once brought the republic to the 
brink of destruction." Israel, in the days of Jeremiah, was guilty of 
reducing men to involuntary servitude. "But ye turned and polluted 
my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his hand- 
maid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and 
brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for hand- 
maids." (Jer. xxxiv. 10.) Now hearken to their doom. "Therefore 
thus saith the Lord: Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming 
liberty every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbour: be- 
hold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the Lord, to the sword, to the 
pestilence, and to the famine ; and I will make you to be removed into 
all kingdoms of the earth." (Jer. xxxiv. 17.) 

So far is it from being true that slavery is sanctioned by the Scrip- 
tures, that every page of these sacred writings flashes with fiery wrath 
against oppression. Can there be anything more infamous than the 
representation that the righteous and merciful God approves, in his 
word, such atrocities as are perpetrated in connexion with the very 
existence -of slavery? What, I ask again, is slavery ? It is the chat- 

LofC. 



[ 23 ] 

tellizing and brutalizing of man, made in the image of God. It is a 
system that clothes man with irresponsible power over his fellow, that 
authorizes him to buy and sell men and women like cattle in the mar- 
ket, to separate husbands and wives, parents and children, lovers and 
friends, that he may gratify his lust for gain ; and if they give expres- 
sion to their anguish of heart, he may whip them, like brutes; if they 
attempt to escape, he may chain them, like felons; if they resist, he 
may murder them, and the law throws the shield of its protection 
around him. 0, listen to the piercing scream of the slave mother, as 
her child is heartlessly torn from her bosom, and sold to that most 
brutal and cruel of tyrants, the slave driver. Then turn and listen to 
the teaching of the Junkins, the Rices, the Springs, as they stand 
forth in sacred garb proclaiming that slavery is not inconsistent with 
Christian character — that Christ and his apostles did not condemn 
slavery — that there is nothing in the gospel which, fairly interpreted, 
would exclude slaveholders from the communion of the church. Lis- 
ten, first to the one, and then to the other, and you must exclaim with 
the poet: — 

"Just God! what must be thy look, 
When such a man before thee stands, 
Unblushing with thy sacred book, 

Turning its leaves with haughty hands, 
To wring from out its text sublime, 
This creed of blood, and hate, and crime!" 

If ever fallen spirits of darkness are jubilant, it i3 when the ministers of 
the gospel — who stand forth in the name of Jesus to teach the revelation 
of the holy God, the gospel of the Prince of Peace^ the precepts of the 
Father of Mercies — sanction a system that snaps asunder the bonds of 
natural brotherhood, devotes man as a sacrifice to be offered on the 
altar of Mammon — 

" Dooms and devotes him as lawful prey, 
Chains him, and tasks him, and exacts his sweat 
With stripes, that Mercy, with a bleeding heart, 
Weeps when she sees inflicted on a beast." 

Let us, then, be stimulated to labour for the overthrow of this system 
of iniquity and blood. The love which every one should have for the 
land of his birth, or adoption, should prompt to this. It is a crime 
that will bring down the terrible retribution of Heaven on the land. 
Did God devote Israel of old, for this sin, to the sword, pestilence, 
and famine? Did he waste Egypt with plague after plague, and make 
Tyre a perpetual desolation? And shall this nation, not merely fol- 
lowing in these footsteps, but far surpassing them in violence, cruelty, 
and blood, escape? "When he maketh inquisition for blood, he re- 
membereth them; he forgetteth not the cry of the humble." Then 
let every patriot, every lover of his country, call upon the oppressor 
to " break off his sins by righteousness, and his iniquities by showing 
mercy to the poor." 

Slavery is exposing this country to reproach among the nations of 
the earth. Does not the true American blush when England's poet 
sings— 

" United States, your banner wears 

Two emblems — one of fame; 
Alas! the other that it bears 

Reminds us of vour shame. 



[ 24 ] 

Your standard's constellation types 

White freedom by its stars, 
But what's the meaning of the stripes? 

They mean your negroes' scars." 

Until this foul stain is wiped from the national escutcheon, until the 
freemen of this nation divorce themselves from this gigantic system of 
wrong, oppression, and cruelty, they must be silent in regard to the 
despotisms of the old world. 

" 0, shall we scofFat Europe's kings 
While freedom's fire is dim with us, 
And round our country's altar clings 
The damning shade of slavery's curse?" 

Labour, then, to overthrow this system of oppression and tyranny, 
unsurpassed by European or Asiatic despotism, that we may consist- 
ently stand forth and invite the oppressed of all lands to our shores, 
to the home of the free and the asylum of the oppressed. 

Let the friends of liberty be encouraged. You are sure of success 
and victory. Your cause is the cause of humanity — the cause of right- 
eousness, the cause of God and his Christ. The law of God is on 
your side, and you must therefore prevail, for he will vindicate the 
honour of his violated law. If God be for you, who can be against 
you? His hand is mighty in battle. How encouraging, then, his de- 
claration, " For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the 
needy, now will I arise, and set him in safety from him that puffeth at 
him." There is also encouragement in the signs of the times. The 
hosts of freedom are rapidly augmenting. Lay after day the ranks 
are swelling ; and the streaming white banner borne aloft by the leaders 
of freedom's hosts is floating on the breeze, and on its gorgeous folds 
is emblazoned Liberty to the Oppressed. The old political parties 
that have so long pandered to the oppression are dissolving and crum- 
bling, as if smitten by the stone cut out of the mountains without 
hands. The minions of oppression are trembling, their leaders are 
quailing, and liberty, which has been immolated on her own altars, 
or buried by traitorous hands beneath the thrones of despotism, is 
about to burst the cerements of the tomb, and stand forth in regene- 
rated life, and vigour, and glory. The human heart in every clime 
throbs in unison with the noble impulse that animates the friend of 
the slave — the foe of the oppressor. When the great Magyar chief 
uttered his voice against Austrian despotism, the thunder tones of his 
eloquence reverberated throughout commoved and sympathizing na- 
tions. A lone man, John Brown, of immortal memory, lifts his arm 
in behalf of the slave, and their conscience-stricken oppressors quail 
at his presence. He dies as a hero and a martyr, and a cord is touched 
which vibrates from east to west, and from west to east; one mighty 
wave of sympathy with the sufferer, and his cause rolls over the land ; 
one vehement burst of indignation breaks from the heart and lips of 
many a noble spirit, and prayers are now on record in the court of 
Heaven — " How long, Lord, holy and true, dost thou not avenge 
his blood on them that dwell on the earth?" Blessed augury! It in- 
dicates the dawning of a better day — a day of liberty to the oppressed, 
of love and good-will to man — a day when the jubilee trumpet shall 
sound; and as its gladdening notes swell on the breeze, we shall hear 
the proclamation of "Liberty throughout all the land to all the inha- 
bitants thereof!" 

54 W 




4 • A V ^ : 





























A° ^*U •'"• <v^ 






v. ^ < 












W 



0* *•*.!•• . *o 







;• ♦♦ -^ 



A 




















^^ 



/\ 









A 



V 













1 March ,V '«pn 1989 I 






^ 
^ 




